Continuing the Creation Journey in 2016
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Wishing you all a Happy Calendar-Changing Day! Well, there's nothing all that special about New Year's Day, and many cultures past and present established different dates and customs for their new year. Although I believe in setting goals and enacting them at the best possible time, January 1 is convenient in some ways — especially since those late-year holidays that many of us observe are taken care of. I'm ready to begin 2016 with my unregistered assault keyboard and hoping to equip all y'all who are willing to read.
I agree with other writers who have said that people like some of the personal stuff, so this article will have a bit more of that than usual.
But — why me? Why am I doing this? Seriously. There are many people with more intelligence, charm, good looks, skill, education, and experience than I have who say some of these things far better than I. (Someone told me that my Asian name is Sum Dum Gai. Everyone else laughed. I still don't get it.) In fact, I expressed this puzzlement about "why me?" to someone who said that maybe I'd say something that somehow "clicks" with a reader, even though he or she has read the ideas elsewhere. Could be. At any rate, I believe that God has called me to this online creation science ministry, so I intend to remain faithful until he tells me to stop, or brings me to that final roundup. Anyway, I put a passel of links up in about 1,300 articles on this site, hoping that people will follow them to the important material. Or at least, some of them.
It's exciting to be a creationist, and there has been a whole whack of evidence falling into place that supports our views — and upsets evolutionists.
Over the past few years (and it seems more so in 2015), I keep on seeing how people interpret evidence according to their worldviews. This is extremely evident when dealing with origins science. Darwin's ranch hands often insist that science is something monolithic, standing on it's own merits. Something like, "We have science, and you have religion" is said. Such a statement displays ignorance, because science is a philosophy of interpreting evidence; the "scientific method" varies. Secularists interpret evidence through philosophical and methodological naturalism, and biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, organized complexity in nature testifies to this, and the observable evidence supports the recent creation and the Genesis Flood.
Regular readers know that I emphasize how evolutionary thinking is actually harmful to scientific research (for example, in "Cancer Research and Evolutionary Thinking". In a recent episode of Genesis Week, Ian Juby discussed how evolutionary bias has scientists portraying ancient people as something recently evolved but were stupid. In fact, this is probably behind the view that Noah and company were not able to build the Ark, because they were too "primitive". Biblical creationists believe that God made man intelligent from the get-go. I recommend Ian's video, "Ppl R smrt".
There's an example of one thing that I emphasize: people argue from their presuppositions and worldviews. But there are other things that people need to be aware of:
The year of our Lord 2015 was a great year for creation science and evidence for a recent creation, as were previous years. This extends from dinosaur soft tissues to DNA to radiometric dating and meteorites to discoveries in space that shocked secular cosmologists, and much more that is discussed on this site and others that are linked. I'm looking forward to bringing you information, Question Evolution Day, and things to ponder in 2016, to the glory of God.
Wishing you all a Happy Calendar-Changing Day! Well, there's nothing all that special about New Year's Day, and many cultures past and present established different dates and customs for their new year. Although I believe in setting goals and enacting them at the best possible time, January 1 is convenient in some ways — especially since those late-year holidays that many of us observe are taken care of. I'm ready to begin 2016 with my unregistered assault keyboard and hoping to equip all y'all who are willing to read.
I agree with other writers who have said that people like some of the personal stuff, so this article will have a bit more of that than usual.
 | |
|
It's exciting to be a creationist, and there has been a whole whack of evidence falling into place that supports our views — and upsets evolutionists.
Over the past few years (and it seems more so in 2015), I keep on seeing how people interpret evidence according to their worldviews. This is extremely evident when dealing with origins science. Darwin's ranch hands often insist that science is something monolithic, standing on it's own merits. Something like, "We have science, and you have religion" is said. Such a statement displays ignorance, because science is a philosophy of interpreting evidence; the "scientific method" varies. Secularists interpret evidence through philosophical and methodological naturalism, and biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, organized complexity in nature testifies to this, and the observable evidence supports the recent creation and the Genesis Flood.
Regular readers know that I emphasize how evolutionary thinking is actually harmful to scientific research (for example, in "Cancer Research and Evolutionary Thinking". In a recent episode of Genesis Week, Ian Juby discussed how evolutionary bias has scientists portraying ancient people as something recently evolved but were stupid. In fact, this is probably behind the view that Noah and company were not able to build the Ark, because they were too "primitive". Biblical creationists believe that God made man intelligent from the get-go. I recommend Ian's video, "Ppl R smrt".
There's an example of one thing that I emphasize: people argue from their presuppositions and worldviews. But there are other things that people need to be aware of:
- Being aware of the logical fallacies that atheists and evolutionists employ to bully Christians and creationists helps keep you from being intimidated.
- One major logical fallacy is the bait 'n' switch of conflation (or equivocation) on definitions. There are many definitions for evolution, and some are vague. Because fruit flies or bacteria "evolved" (showed change), this is proof of evolution. Wrong-o! That sneaky trick is used to get people to think that simple variation is evidence of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution, which is false.
- Neo-Darwinism is assumed to be true by many scientists, but they are not unified in their beliefs, and there are many scientists who reject such evolutionism.
- The science press makes outrageous proclamations, sometimes without the support of scientists that they quote
The year of our Lord 2015 was a great year for creation science and evidence for a recent creation, as were previous years. This extends from dinosaur soft tissues to DNA to radiometric dating and meteorites to discoveries in space that shocked secular cosmologists, and much more that is discussed on this site and others that are linked. I'm looking forward to bringing you information, Question Evolution Day, and things to ponder in 2016, to the glory of God.